Readers' comments

I find the comments that tend to accompany these kinds of articles interesting. There's usually a bunch of readers who defend the big businesses and argue against 'socialist' ideals. Unfortunately, when reading these comments, it becomes quite clear that none of these readers know what socialism is. To them, socialism is a terrible and frightful concept, and that's all there is to it. I find this very curious.

I'm a bit shocked of the support for Wal-Mart's foray into the DC market. If you do any kind of meaningful research, you'll learn that the Walton Family, the founders of Wal-Mart pull in billions of dollars of profit each year. Billions. They make these profits off the backs of their workers.Consider: they pay their workers low wages and often keep them on a cycle of 'seasonal' contracts. As such many Wal-Mart employees remain on seasonal contracts after several years of work (which also means they have no benefits like eye care, dental or pharmacy prescriptions). Wal-Mart can afford to pay their workers living wages. If workers are paid a livable wage, they have more spending money to generate economic growth in their low-income areas. It's great that Wal-Mart has low-cost groceries, but consider, what is the human cost of these prices?

Arguments suggesting that low-wages create jobs and create stable economies are a fiction. In reality, living wages create more economic and stable growth in the long run. If you're interested, I recommend reading a peer-reviewed books called "The Body Economic: Recessions, Budget Battles, and the Politics of Life and Death".

It's not that Wal-Mart is inherently evil, but we have to be practical and rational about this. Let's look at the evidence. Ask yourself: How does Wal-Mart treat it's employees? Would you want to work at Wal-Mart? What has Wal-Mart done (historically) to stores that have unionized?

As the cost of a "living wage" will not absorbed by Wal-Mart shareholders and instead will be passed on to Wal-Mart shoppers in terms of higher prices, the question is whether Wal-Mart shoppers can afford to pay Wal-Mart workers living wages.

"It's great that Wal-Mart has low-cost groceries, but consider, what is the human cost of these prices?"

Are you saying Wal-Mart shoppers are not paying enough to buy groceries?

You assume no change in consumer behavior in response to higher prices without providing any information to support your assumption. The way I see it, the more affluent Washingtonians will be able to save money on groceries and other essentials by shopping in Maryland or Virginia, while the less affluent Washingtonians who have no way to get to the suburbs will have no choice but to pay more money to buy groceries and other essentials.

In short, if consumers have options (and the ability to travel across state lines to find the best prices), then a "living wage" could inflict an even greater financial hardship on Washington's neediest.

I agree we have to be practical and rational about this, which is why the American federal, state and local governments should eliminate trade barriers, wage and price floors and other costly imperfections from the agricultural market and the labor market. It is a national disgrace that America's neediest are paying more than they should to buy food for their families.

If you've ever seen a Walmart distribution center, you would know that Walmart is successful because of its economy of scale. Walmart was quick to adopt new advancements in IT and computer technology to efficiently keep what patrons want on its shelves. Because Walmart has common household goods from auto-care to groceries to carpets, it offers a convenience that most stores don't. I'm upper middle class, and I regularly patronize Walmart. But I have a choice. There are others who would lose hundreds of dollars a year out of their meagre paychecks when forced to buy from stores that are less convenient and pricier.

And what are the negatives? It doesn't pay its employees well? I contend that if the employees purchased their necessities from Walmart, they would be better off than if they worked in a Safeway and had to also purchase there. Even if that is not true, increase in welfare of all the non-employees of Walmart in the community more than compensates.

I would type more, but I have to go get my oil changed, a prescription filled and buy some cheese. Hopefully there is one store that provides all those services.

Washington DC is simply helping Walmart compete in the retail marketplace with Costco, which apparently is able to pay workers a non-hobby wage. (If you can't make enough to pay your expenses, it isn't a job, it is a hobby.) So, Washington DC is simply trying to raise Walmart up, instead of having Walmart drag everyone down. Sorry if this offends those of you who would like to bring back the East India Company and indentured servitude.

And where then are the pleas for a 'living wage' for the many thousands of existing jobs in the DC area that are truly minimum wage? Why isn't every resident of DC insulted by a city-define paltry minimum wage of $8.50? Where is the outrage on behalf of employees of McDonalds?

Sadly a hopeful but woefully uninformed gut-feeling about what's 'right' has no basis in practical economics. And no, the size of a company does not dictate the wages it should pay. Yes WM generates $16B in profits a year, but it also has 1.4 Million US employees...who average over $12/hour by the way.

Research annual revenue per person employed, in relation to wages paid, and you'll find that there is parity among entry-level work in the US. That's why it's entry level.

I agree, a living wage should apply to all minimum-wage jobs. However, I think your approach/theory is flawed.
Instead of arguing against living-wage for Wal-Mart employees because no one else has them (i.e. McDonald's employees) I think it's more rational and logical if you argue in favor of living wages for everyone. What benefits my neighbour is not a detriment to me. What benefits my neighbour benefits me, and I too, should have the same benefits as my neighbour. Something to think about.

Actually, there have been protests of McDonald's and other fast food places. There is no such thing as "practical" economics. It is a term you made up to make it look like you know what you are talking about when you don't.

Size is often used to determine regulatory application.

Again, you have decided it is entry level. That is a term used by you to justify treating people like slaves.

I find opposition to Wal-Mart to be pretty ridiculous. For something so "despised", it certainly racks up a lot of business. The nanny city councilmen and women tell anyone who will listen how awful it is for the community - and yet that same community fills up Wal-Mart's parking lot like a football game every weekend.

This is a real life example of how government efforts to artificially raise wages will create unemployment. DC has the 44th highest unemployment rate in the U.S., 8.5 percent. There are many people who live in less affluent neighborhoods that would benefit from the opportunity to work at WalMart; its 1.3 million employees apparently believe it is better than whatever other options exist. However, the LRAA will raise wages 50 percent above the existing legal minimum, only raising the cost of employing unskilled workers while not affecting their productivity, making it less attractive for them to be hired. WalMart has indicated that if the DC city council and the mayor go through with their plans to target it, and it only, for new minimum wage rules it will scrap plans to open three stores in DC, one of which would have resulted in 600 new jobs in Ward 7, where unemployment is the highest.
The less affluent residents of DC would also lose out on the boost to their purchasing power if the city council ends up pushing out Wal Mart. According to Jason Furman, the current Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisors, "A range of studies have found that prices at Wal-Mart are anywhere from 8 to 39 percent less than its major competitors. This is a boon for our less affluent families who need to stretch every dollar as far as possible (economists would call this the "income effect"). As a result, if the city council ends up pushing out Wal-Mart they would end up screwing DC residents twice, preventing significant hiring from new retail investment and preventing downward pressure on prices.

And if someone voluntarily wants a job that pays only $1, that is their perogative. Not a smart move when most likely another company is going to pay more to stay competitive, but still your choice to make. If your expenses call for a higher wage, then pursue other opportunities. Otherwise, if you do not have any expertise, training, skills, ambition or other qualification which an employer needs and is willing to pay for, do not live beyond your means.

As a non-American I'm not someone that has patronised a Walmart often. I've always found the enmity it attracts mystifying. Tesco is the closest equivalent in my country and it attracts equal opprobrium. In the UK its detractors tend to be middle class nimbies that have a rose tinted view of housewives strolling along a high street in the 50s where a friendly shopkeeper knows her children's names and all is right with the world.

My view of the world is that the middle classes (let alone the poor) are struggling to maintain their standards of living and supermarkets with their £8 school uniforms and loss leading bread and milk have done more to consistently alleviate poverty globally than any government programme could ever lay claim to.

Opposition to supermarkets are in my opinion directly hurting the people who have the least opportunity to choose, that is disgraceful.

Why Walmart has been prevented from acheiving a banking licence goes to the heart of the corrosive influence of lobbying in the US.